planes and no problems violates the product property rights of people whoo planes and no problems violates the product property rights of people who dole out a network can't begin to tellpphem how they charge for their product and as you know users u ch big differences than for us to tryppo r o sir ch right now but a lot of or decisionmaking as we talk abo6

based on the assumption there's one of the responsibilities of tlc is to present develop cofpe the theing study. we talked about the need to get that outne o siouavecc ood but do we have a competitive mrk uingblepse? awhopphe evidence is that we do and the fcc is long overdueand % g the information we need. >> thank you very much for being

here. as you always know i like to invite you as members to come to alaska to give you a sense of where even though 90% of the country has wireless, we are not in that equation but thank you for the work you have done. i would be parochial for a moment. that is why i represent alaska. let me give you an example. we are dealing with an issue now, let me give you a comparison. in east texas and anchorage is in los angeles. to give you a distance to something you know is 1200 distant. one of the rules are at least efforts of the national broadband plan was no national cuts. a small community of 130 folks went from december of 2011

resources of usf funds, 84% reduction just like that. this company will be out of business by the end of the year. many of you heard my complaints and concerns about the waiver process. this group represents 130 customers. this is waiver 1 that they have to fill out. this is waiver 2. it is very expensive and hard to do. somehow i recognize one size can't fit all. you have been very good in trying to figure out and i appreciate that. i am giving you my flash point. at the end of the year they will not be able to pay their loans and they will be out of

business. only part landmine and wireless provider and that is it. is there a way and i use this as an example for small carriers under 50,000 wines, to help get some relief in the education process, this is several hundred thousand dollars. many of you are lawyers and these are not cheap when you have a few pieces of paper drawn up. is there some way that gives them relief in this process and very timely response because there clock is ticking and they will be out of business. i give it to you but i want to start with kevin. you have done an excellent job working with us because it is so different. it is rural. all of you have been there and know what i am talking about. tell us what through this and

ensure that a place like -- most of their work is in wireless. this is what they want to provide. this is my example. >> the general challenge we face is so we inherited a program with very little accountability where recipients in general have control of the funding spigot and fiscal responsibility is a challenge and converting the program from one with insufficient accountability to one where the money consumers are paying in, every dollar is going out in a way they sins is a challenge. we are in the first round of the implementation and we understand for some of the companies it is a particular challenge but we take the waiver process seriously and we will look for ways sins streamline and improve its those that we can move from the program we have which everyone agreed didn't work to

one that he efficiently achieved our collective goal of insuring university market. >> is there a way for a very small carriers sins the waiver process cost to fill an out is there a way to get relief so it is a streamlined process? i am not a lawyer so i can't tell you what streamlining looks like from the lawyer's perspective but it seems excessive force simple obvious issue that is about to happen. >> we will look for the most streamlined way to look for the process. there are very many small companies that are receiving consumer dollars, taxpayer dollars. we have to get the balance right between protecting the money going into the fund but not creating a possible situation for companies coming in. some of what the companies are doing now, helping us with the

accountable program they don't have to do more than one but we are committed to a streamlined process. >> i have several other questions, more broad and parochial and i appreciate keeping your requirement of five minutes total. >> thank you, senator mignon -- senator begich. senator boozman. >> welcome to our members. as you know, we recently sent you a letter regarding the universal service reform and the need for regulatory certainty as the process moves forward. businesses large and small medieval to properly plan for the future and there are many concerns especially from rural providers that they lack the necessary daily information to move forward. i welcome your comments regarding that. we also invited you to arkansas

and many in rural america feel they are being left out of the process. arkansas is much like west virginia. i will ask you to do that. can you comment a little bit about that as we move forward? >> it would be my second trip to arkansas and i learned a lot on my first trip and recognize the challenges in rural arkansas when it comes to broadband. we had eighteen million americans who live in areas with no broadband infrastructure including many in arkansas. the program we inherited was sending more money than it should to certain areas. funding four five providers in a single area for find funding, one company when there was an unsubsidized competitor. the reforms we put in place are designed to cut those back and

move forward with funding broadband 4 and served americans in places like arkansas. the transition is challenging but our focus is on achieving these goals for rural america and the purpose of universal service in a way that is consistent with fiscal responsibility and accountability and predictability and certainty. we are in some ways the hardest part of the implementation. we will continue to work together as the group to get the balance right so that we get broadband to people who don't have and deserve it and don't waste money but also are cognizant of business realities for the company's receiving funds for the program and to deal with those companies in a fair and reasonable and phased in way. >> any of you can jump in on this. what we're hearing a lot about our miss use of the lifeline program. marketing is very aggressive now.

many americans are concerned about the possible fraud and abuse of the lifeline program. it is like seeing the wheelchair and on television where you contact us and you get this free. what that does also visit is it is one of those things that destroyed trust in our institutions. can you comment on reforms? i know you are actively looking to do that. what are we looking to do to fix the program? >> if you months ago the commission unanimously adopted some strong reforms to address waste, fraud and abuse in the program. for example duplicative recipients when there is only supposed to be one per home, tackling a situation with people who were not entitled to get the benefit. there is a problem with unscrupulous people who try to take advantage of the program and take advantage of people.

we are increasing enforcement efforts and can't speak about specific investigations we have ongoing but companies that are taking advantage of this program we will come after. >> good to know. we talked about spectrum a little bit. what short-term solutions are out there for spectrum needs that can be utilized while we do the longer term solutions such as incentive options and things like that that are implemented. what is on the short term? >> several things. my colleagues want to comment. i am license -- it is a real opportunity for seeing wi-fi taking more of a load, the unlicensed spectrum not knowing where it would be a couple decades ago. we're seeing advances in technology and infrastructure, smaller cells being rolled out, more efficient. near-term spectrum we can auction off if we all work

together. working closely on the 1755 spectrum. we need to accelerate those efforts, move quickly. there are several pieces of spectrum identified in the spectrum with deadlines for auctioning them. we will auction them and working hard to make sure when we auctioned them we auctioned them in a way that is most valuable to the public. finding ways to pare spectrum. >> thank you. senator blunt. >> on the reform of the universal service, what are you doing to deal with the issue of subsidy of non subsidized competitor in the environment we talked about before? how are you defining and serve and underserve and trying to be

fair as you look at the underserved community and look at partially served community? some thoughts would be helpful. >> getting broadband to an serve the americans is a goal with fiscal responsibility and cackling areas where the fund is, one company with and subsidized competitor we agree that needs to be phased out. there are issues that are challenging. what if there is partial overlap? those are issues we will work through as we implement it but broadband to answer americans, fiscal responsibility and business reality so that we don't treat unfairly companies that shouldn't be receiving money ultimately but have near-term alliances we take into account. >> is the additional use of this fund have any impact on those small telephone companies that

are 60% -- may be 1 or 2 might be as high as 90% are dependent on the help from the usf? as you then say spend more of this on broadband, was available to spend on traditional phone service? >> the networks are the same. many of the companies in this particular category. most of the issues come from a subset of world providers, the ones that are under a rate of return regime. these companies have received for many years a guaranteed to 11.25% return. most companies don't operate that way and most un serve rural americans live in areas served by companies called price cap carriers. we do want to make sure as we put in place these reforms that we are sensitive to the unique needs of the smallest companies

under rate of return but also have an obligation to the consumers putting money into the fund. getting that balance right is what we're focused on doing together. is not easy but that is our goal and our focus. >> on spectrum sale are you having any luck with companies? do you need some companies to relinquish areas of the spectrum they have and having any luck getting them to do that? >> i agree with my colleague. we need the federal government in some cases to relinquish spectrum that they have or to move more quickly to share spectrum. that is the single most promising area to free up a substantial amount of spectrum for mobile broadband with the incentive option provision the committee and congress adopted. >> you have ideas how that sharing might work or the government community could get up total control of parts of the spectrum in a way that would be

hugely beneficial or at least beneficial -- >> the federal government alone probably occupies 60% of the useful spectrum. that is the federal government. not state and local governments. spectrum sharing can mean a lot of different things. a private sector user should not have priority should the government want to break into its channels so to speak. for instance if private-sector users, their call is dropped. what is the value of that to the marketplace, the rights of an unlicensed user where you don't have priority if you're walky-talky or baby monitor etc. either got cut off by the stronger person or your neighbor. that is not an ideal situation which is what we mean by spectrum sharing.

the use of white spaces is a form of sharing. scraps in between channels so that in a lot of ways we can approach the sharing concept but i don't think it is secure all. the executive branch needs to look harder at what spectrum they can option and they need to do it yesterday. >> senator lautenberg. >> thanks, mr. chairman. chairman genacowski, if we look at today's n.y. times looking at the hacking case, head of the rupert murdoch british newspaper empire was formally charged on

tuesday for -- the course of justice in phone hacking. it bolsters the case that i want to make with you. there is evidence that news corp. has been involved in a broad range of misconduct reaching the highest levels of the new york based company and involving actions in the u.k. in the u.s.. if we look at the list here, these are senior people from the subsidy. they apply for renewal of license in 2007, 2007, five years ago. despite this long list the fcc has not announced any plans for proactive investigation into whether or not news corp. has

broadcast license in the u.s.. i can trust this to each one of you. what does it take for the fcc to begin an investigation? >> obviously we have important responsibilities under the law. we have serious issues that we see in the u.k.. these matters man come before the sec. it would be appropriate for us to prejudge them and appropriate any investigations -- >> we're talking about an action. >> we don't comment as other agencies don't comment on the status of investigations. obviously we have important responsibilities that we will take seriously. it is important that we not prejudge it. >> important to take seriously the head of the company found unfit to lead a major international company by british parliamentary committee. doesn't that suggest that maybe

we ought to be looking at them to see what the effect that has? they do have an obligation to have a license renewal. it has been a long time. it is my understanding that the fcc is looking at how news corp. delivery -- deliberately misled the fcc. mr. mcdowell, do you have a point of view about when we should get started on this? >> the chairman stated it eloquently. >> i heard. >> i agree with what the chairman said. >> we do have a process in place of any potential petitioner has a right to file before us and when and if they do we take those matters seriously and we will review in a timely manner.

>> the communications act speaks in terms of character and financial qualifications for broadcast licensees so they should monitor the situation. >> at the risk of going last sins i have nothing original today, i will call on a question and commit to you that in context of license renewal proceeding i will stay in the record carefully and support of reaction. >> some action here is absolutely required. we ought to get going on this. in new jersey where one of their stations exist, would be the fourth largest media market in the country and these people have a license and they are fiddling around with this. while we are not -- there is not evidence enough to make a

decision, certainly we ought to be looking at this and saying isn't it time for you to stepped up and declare yourself partake that license and say the patience of the country has been long run out and we award the license to deserving parties. many americans aren't able to get drugs because they live in areas where companies won't make it available or simply can't support it. yet 19 states currently risk local government's the ability to offer broadband after we expand abroad and access to prevent municipal broadband. >> we have seen some terrific examples of municipal innovation around broadband. my own view is those should be encouraged with folks working at

the committee on addressing obstacles and barriers. >> thank you, senator lautenberg. we have a number of people -- >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> it is over 5. senator rubio. >> i will be brief. the first question, you wrote a piece in february titled you and threat to internet freedom. you were talking about the international telecommunication -- all of you are interested in that process. give us an update where we stand on that issue and what will the commission will play in that regard? >> the commission plays a supporting role as technical advisor to the state department. i understand through private and public information that the state department will announce ahead of the u.s. delegation and negotiate next month some time. this comes at a crucial time as

some crucial meetings will take place internationally later in june leading towards treaty negotiation in december. it is of utmost importance that the united states cultivates allies throughout the world and especially the developing world which would be devastated by international regulation. >> the commission anticipates supporting role putting out recommendations to the state department what our mission should be and what we should be advocating for or against in terms of having an agenda? >> i have been encouraged by the obama administration's statements. there was a block a couple weeks ago by the white house and state department and commerce department jointly so that is a very good sign. the fcc is on board with that. >> the other question we talk a lot about is access to different centers. i want to raise it. anybody can talk about it.

we talked about puerto rico and startling statistics about pr. the 2010-706 section found that four million puerto ricans have no broadband access which is one sixth of all americans identified as an served in 2011. seventy% of pr is an serve by broadband services. the national broadband plan does not factor in puerto rico and is not part of the united states and excludes puerto rico in determining the broadband availability gap based on sufficient data. where do we stand on this issue? is of critical importance. >> it is an important issue and puerto rico is very much a part of our plans and we have our goal of reaching a non serve the americans with broadband. puerto rico is part of that. funds have to come from somewhere which is why the more support we can get from the committee on a bipartisan basis

to bring savings out of the program to get the program to non served americans the stronger it will be and the faster we will be able to move. there is good news in pr. mobile connectivity has increased rapidly also supported by government programs but there is an issue, look forward to working with you on addressing them. >> i look at this in terms of process is especially from the mobile perspective as a down payment. we made a commitment to work within a certain budgetary framework and that means the types of engagements or restrictions that we speak of today. we take a lot of meetings to represent those in that particular -- in that territory and carol lot about connectivity and those who deserve the same

type of engagement as we have and hopefully the savings we will speak more about will be able to connect those in that area. >> the mobile capacity expansion on par with the rest at the national level or in essence is the evidence that that is where the demand is going because of the broadband route? you talk about the rapid growth in mobile connectivity. is that based on demand? growing faster than the national average? >> that is part of it. no question the rate of increase has been fast. i don't remember the level of mobile penetration but we can get that information to you. >> it is really important. a lot of people are not aware -- the implications it could have in the twenty-first century especially with the countries

that are really engaging in this regard. china and russia and especially china, not exactly best sins of the internet freedom. anyplace that bansbins of the internet freedom. anyplace that bans certain terms of search. hope the committee will keep a close eye on that issue. >> the proposal to create a new layer of international governments are bad idea and that for the global economy and lead for freedom and democracy around the world and across the administration we are committed to opposing those strongly. >> thank you for your resolution. >> thank you, i am going to call on senator toomey, senator klobuchar was in line before that so it will be senator to me, senator klobuchar, senator

pryor and senator cantwell if she should return. >> i would like to thank all the commissioners as well for being here today. the first question might as well go to the chairman with this. the authority the commission claims for the passage of the open internet order doesn't rest on title ii of the telecommunications act at all. okay. if the court strikes down the validity of this order do you support reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under that act? >> the framework we have adopted is working. it is widely supported and lead to predictability, certainty in the industry. i hope the court doesn't strike it down. if it does i hope congress will fill the gap immediately and make it clear we have the authority.

through a lot of hard work we take the big radioactive dispute, increase in the and predictability and increase innovation and investments. >> i know that is your view. is not shared university of to say the least and neither of us knows what the court is going to do but there is a distinct possibility they could strike this down so my question for you is do you believe -- do you intend -- would you support reclassifying broadband to have it considered under title 2? >> the title 2 approach is not the best idea. we have title 1 authority and i am optimistic there will uphold that and we will move forward in the direction we are on. >> do you have an opinion, commissioner? >> the title 2 docket ought to be closed in that case. the option of having an open are

devastating. >> anybody else want to comment on this? >> i made mention earlier that the current framework is working. there were high-level rules of the road on one page that lends to certainty and transparency that is beneficial to the american way of life. i am hopeful also that the courts will recognize. >> a different question. the applicability of title 2. >> i am hopeful and if the court hands out a decision that is contrary to that i will come back. thank you. >> anybody else anything want to add? >> as i said in the previous hearing, i would not support under title 2 assuming it is

adjusted. >> hi acknowledge the last decade has been in the business of reclassifying services as information services and substantial reliance on that regime and the supreme court upheld that regime. at the same time i support the approach the chairman has recommended. >> i am sorry to interrupt. never considered broadband internet access service to be a telecommunications service under title 2. i am happy to supply the committee with information in that regard. >> i welcome that. let me ask about the incentive options. to finish the design.

>> i intend to move as expeditiously as possible. to maximize broadcasters, and -- >> can you share with us any sort of guiding principle on what sorts of conditions he might consider. >> i can't because my mind is open and i suspect we have a robust process hearing from a lot of stakeholders. the goal is maximizing the opportunity, all-american learning from experience and maintaining u.s. leadership. >> do you have anything you would like to add. >> should be investing in that spectrum. we need to be very careful about

any other conditions. >> anybody else like to add anything. >> thank you, senator toomey. senator klobuchar and senator pryor -- >> thank you very much. i want to apply the recent action on claiming, a lot of issues in the state and i wondered if you could elaborate a little on how you are going to investigate this and what your plans are and why you think it is a problem. >> informed by the excellent work the staff of this committee did in tackling hearings the committee held and the complaints we also receive that

the fcc and we found the same as the committee staff report with respect to wireline there was real evidence of consumer abuse and we needed to act and we did unanimously at the commission putting in place a set of reforms we expect -- we also continue to take enforcement seriously. we announced over the last year a series of enforcement actions that will continue. and we will continue -- we have some reports. at the point when we announced our order. if those problems increase we will act so let's avoid them up front. >> commissioner mcdowell. >> i don't think i can improve on that answer. >> why do it twice if you can answer it once? this is something i have been

working on with senator warner. it requires states to install broadband as far as a federally funded transportation project. this is part of a national broadband planned. could you address how you're going to work with the secretary of transportation in carrying out this program? >> the transportation others to move as quickly as possible because it is a no-brainer and sins the idea was first conceived it is clear it is not only a wireline but wireless as well. many people don't realize a wireless call, distance travels through wireline network and lowering the cost, infrastructure build out, wireline and wireless, we are hopeful to see some action in the future.

>> in the senate appropriations hearing it indicated that the fcc has been working closely to short the reforms did not understand the asset portfolio. can you show the details of how those discussions are going and to make sure that there is not any harm to the portfolio. >> we recognize there are issues for u.s. efforts when it comes to that and resolving it will require flexibility on the fcc's heart. potentially flexibility on congress's part. we don't want to let the tail wag the dog and have a u.s. loan mean -- paying for unjustifiable service for a long time. we recognize near-term business reality. we will work with this committee to address the issue. >> i have a question about the first phase of the connect

america fund in the u.s. reform quarter. it is supposed to provide $300 million in support for 2012 broadband investment. i am hearing some portions of it may go unused. >> so far the response has been very strong but i would get back to you with the exact percentage on how much will be utilized. i want to encourage maximum possible use that told me they would use everybody in the first face and the second phase and we have mechanisms to address unclaimed money. but we are hearing a positive response. >> you can answer this in writing. very remote areas of our state

and the canadian border. except going through canada called the northwest -- unless the ice freezes over. they applied for channel reallocation after the transition but i had to wait years to get final approval from the canadian government. we can talk about it in writing. coordination with canada going forward with regard to the incentive auction legislation that was passed in february and other issues we think we can do a better job working with our canadian friends. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator thune. we have six people to go. there's a possibility it may slip but people who waited to ask a question should be respected so if people could exercise discipline. >> mr. genacowski, on april 3rd

this year, senator begich and i send you a letter requesting the fcc not implement additional reductions in usf support. until the implications and reforms are adopted and the reform order can be properly evaluated and understood. there has not been an official reply to the letter. will there be a reply forthcoming in the near future? >> it will be. maybe this will be addressed in the letter but can you answer the question whether or not you would delay additional reductions pursuant to the further notice until the implications of the reform is adopted and the water can be properly evaluated and understood? >> it is important to move forward implementing the reform while listening carefully to the issues that come up and make appropriate modifications. one reason i haven't responded to your letter yet is we made some modifications in the last

two or three weeks so we could tell you about them because we want to respond to the concerns. stopping reforms would be counterproductive with earth fiscal responsibility and unfair to serve the americans who would benefit from moving forward. >> this question has to do with the concern of wireless and telecom industry about additional spectrum. great consumer demand for wireless services and we have recent economic reports that conclude that unleashing 300 mhz from mobile broadband by 2016 would spur $75 in new capital spending and create 300,000 to 770,000 new jobs. when you look at the entire wireless ecosystem and benefits that are derived from this type of investments, it is one of the

good news stories. my question has to do with how we get new spectrum out there. i believe we have to do more to identify new spectrum and get into the hands of those who will continue to build robust wireless networks. you are looking at ways to get more spectrum to market but the process might take too long. in some cases we need more time. that won't be sufficient based on the demand. question is consistent with what the president called for in the form of an additional 500 mhz spectrum can you provide more detail how we get spectrum to market quickly. >> the auction authority will make a difference to move forward in implementing that quickly. spectrum from government is important and working on a bipartisan basis with the committee will help. there are areas where we

identify removing regulatory barriers we can free up spectrum that is already commercial for mobile broadband and look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis as well. >> we welcome that opportunity. i would follow up -- >> those of you starting right now that haven't, more people are waiting to escape question. will you yield? >> i will yield. if that is your desire. i will submit some questions for the record. >> i appreciate it. >> you do have that. senator pryor. >> chairman genacowski, i want to jump in on the child's safe viewing act and this was a bipartisan bill that was directed to move beyond the

beach head and look at the advanced blocking technology. can you give us a quick update of what fcc is doing? >> the tremendous accomplishment for congress to pass this bill by insuring the industry takes disabilities issue into account early it will solve problems and take advantage of the opportunity to serve people with disabilities. the statute gives us a list of target dates to hit. we hit all of them so far working well -- it has been a success and we are committed to seeing it continue to be a success. >> on the child safety act -- >> i am sorry. my apologies. >> those are both initiatives here in the committee but go ahead. >> i will apply that to a different question. the opportunities of technology to empower parents in meaningful ways is something we have talked

about for a long time. is a real opportunity. we are seeing new technology hit the markets to do that and continuing to work together to incentivize, promote those technologies and the awareness of parents about those technologies. >> is the sec taking steps to bring those technologies to bear to allow parents, especially parents to utilize this technology? >> we are doing our reach an events at school and with parents and worked with the education department to the extent that we can resolve these issues through better technology in the hands of more parents would be preferable and work better than other courses of action. >> do you have anything to add to that? >> did a great job on a roll. >> you mention the 20 first

century communications video accessibility act. it sounds like the commission made it halfway through or maybe more in trying to implement that and make it work. >> we're getting our target and we will continue. >> there is a provision about clearing house. one of the commissioners here -- basically has the commission taken steps to get the clearinghouse established yet? >> i don't remember. >> i believe it is under way but we will make sure that continues. >> i will yield back my time but i have other questions. >> thank you. chairman genacowski, we spoke last week about several issues. the enforcement action on call completion to make sure it is being taken seriously. about phantom traffic and how we get the carrier identification codes to close a loophole and found a solution.

talk about low power and rulemaking and implementation from the local community radio act so i am optimistic we will see those stations in the very near future or by the end of the year. we spend a lot of time talking about the immediate ownership rule and specifically media cross-ownership. particularly when released in december seems to be the habit and congress's ability to raise objections on this. the martin rule is similar. 28 senators including obama and biden registering disapproval. that subsequently passed the senate. what has changed that will convince me and my colleagues that the march rule and the

genacowski rule from four years ago are now simply ok? to follow-up on that, when looking at the public interest standard, why did you look at media ownership rules versus the top ten or top 30 because i'm trying to get it all in? >> i will keep my answer brief. you have been strong and consistent on the issues and the views you are expressing have been expressed by others in the record. we recognize the conviction you have on these issues and we take them into account as we move from the notice to an order. >> i encourage you to pay attention. many members of congress and the senate passed disapproval of the very thing you are issuing again. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator warner. >> i will try to be very brief. one thing i would point out is fifty-five% owned by federal government. we have a bipartisan bill to try to do a spectrum inventory. we won't know how we can reallocate federal partners unless we have full inventory. we have some parts full back on that. it is essential to us talking about the spectrum inventory build. it is an important step to move forward. i have been concerned with the approach on government spectrum about spectrum sharing as opposed to full relocation. experimental licenses with the private-sector that might allow

a more efficient use of spectrum sharing. >> spectrum sharing is an important opportunity. it shouldn't be thought of as eliminating the need for reallocation of government spectrum used by government. in some cases it may be more effective to have sharing, a license but particular areas around the country where it is expensive to move so t mobile with support of the wireless industry filed application to conduct tests around the military base and working closely to get that granted quickly to identify the base to test this out so we can move forward. >> i really support the efforts you have done.

clearly there is going to be -- none of the fixed rate return players will see any decrease. we were changing the formula but i do think getting these dollars out towards the eighteen million and serve the americans and appreciate the fact you are working together. there will be many efforts to debate that. we may hear from certain of our roles but we don't hear in an organized fashion from eighteen million americans -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> chairman genacowski, we talked a lot about the spectrum being held by the government. i want to ask about a particular ban. 1755 to 1780 which you commented on your opening statement.

my question to you is as we go forward to read purpose that spectrum how is the pentagon being included to protect national security interests and how can we insure it is an open and transparent process all stakeholders can weigh in so we can handle that spectrum properly. >> the commerce department represents all the federal agencies in the process. we coordinate within c.i.a. and speak with military agencies. important to make sure anything that -- there is inefficient spectrum use on the part of the federal government to address those. >> has the pentagon expressed any concerns. >> this idea of a sharing mechanism that will free up the

spectrum for commercial users. the limited areas that needs them. >> i want to jump in on the universal service fund. we all have our different viewpoints on it. i commend you on the reform. you are slowing the growth of money being held. the more we can get the money out it is important but even donor states like new hampshire have rural areas that don't have broadband access. how do i assure my constituents with reforms that being made that as a donor state that that will be addressed in a better way for the return on investment for my constituents? >> we look forward to working with you on concrete new hampshire issues but our uniform bowl or joint goal is to make

sure and served americans everywhere including new hampshire get the benefit of the money going into this. our commitment is in the years ahead this money will be used efficiently to provide service. >> you only have data from 2009. we have been trying to get data from 2010-11 for each state by state breakdown. we hope everyone can see what that means in terms of what they are contributing or not contributing. >> the vote is in process. you are free to ask a question but you will also be sharing the hearing. >> thank you. >> let me ask if you will be willing to answer questions all so that we didn't get the chance to ask in the second rounds.

>> i appreciate you accommodating me. we will report the bill to the full senate in your absence, mr. chairman. chairman genacowski, thank you for sticking around. we have full schedules this afternoon. i am sorry i have not been here for most of the time. i have advocated device interoperable the day. along with a number of competitive wireless carriers operating in the united states. wet me commend you for moving to a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the prospect of interoperable what the in the lower 700 megahertz band. if you could, tell us the status of this notice and when do you

expect the fcc to take final action? >> we appreciate your urging in this regard. it is a real issue for the carriers with that spectrum. there are interference issues that have come up and we are working with stakeholders to analyze interference issues to determine if there is a way to address them to make shore all the carriers with spectrum have the ability to use it and get devices for their consumers. >> how is that process going? i am trying to get a time line. >> i don't remember whether the common proceeding is open or not but our intention is to move quickly because it is a real issue in the marketplace. >> if you could take that for the record and give me a specific answer when you expect

to take final action. let me just ask this to commissioner mcdowell. about the universal service fund and relief mechanisms. last time the committee addressed this issue the sec needed to focus on broadband availability when raining adequately expensive for the needs of rural america which most of us take in the process. not all of my colleagues agree with every aspect of the order. dedicate the wireless service. i share that concern but i believe they took a necessary first step. i urge the fcc to move forward on the second part of the u.s. of reform to focus on the contribution to ensure that we

complete modernization of usf. i do understand some companies have growing pains during this transition. is my understanding that part of the usf order includes several -- and adverse impact on their businesses. are you in a position to elaborate on those relief mechanisms? >> speaking about the waiver process at the fcc. we're taking this very seriously. we want to make sure the wave applications -- so we truly a understand what the hardships may or may not be for the applicants. we want to keep as streamlined as possible. this is a work in progress. we want to refine the process going forward.

>> that process proceeding? >> proceeding fine so far. we will make determinations as quickly as possible on the flavor applications. >> thank you very much. i appreciate folks sticking around. i look to counsel to see if there are magic words i need to say. do i need to adjourn this hearing? this is the most power i have had in quite a while. if there is no objection from other members of the committee we will keep the record open for two weeks. hearing no objection. >> thank you. >> the hearing is adjourned.